Maybe we should give up a bit of liberty

The proposed counter-terrorism overhaul may be one instance where it is justified to shift the balance slightly away from liberty and towards ensuring our collective security, writes Tim Mayfield.

In his cautionary piece regarding the Government's proposed metadata retention policy, Mathew Beard correctly points out that: "liberty and security exist on a sliding scale: the more liberty one possesses, the more one exposes oneself to risk of attack."

I agree with him on this point. However, I would argue that the proposed enhancements to Australia's counter-terrorism framework are one instance where it may be both justified and necessary to shift this balance toward ensuring our collective security.

The recent proposal by the Government to toughen Australia's anti-terror laws has led to serious concerns being expressed by some commentators regarding their potential impact on the basic rule of law and our collective rights and freedoms. While these concerns are valid, they need to be balanced with an acknowledgement that such rights do not exist in isolation of the equally fundamental responsibility of government to ensure the safety and security of its citizens.

ASIO Director-General David Irvine and AFP Deputy Commissioner Andrew Colvin today held a press conference to clarify what the compulsory two-year retention of metadata by telcos meant and how it would be used by law enforcement agencies.

In an effort to quell concern, Irvine stressed the plan wasn't about mass surveillance nor mass invasion of privacy, and agencies would still require a warrant to access certain information.

Certainly, enhancement to government power in any sphere, but especially in matters of criminal justice, should be met with caution and only implemented after extensive consultation and careful drafting of the laws in question.

Unfortunately, that does not appear to have been the case with the Government's rushed announcement of data retention by telecommunications companies. Likewise, the real test of the beefed up terrorism offences will come with the introduction to Parliament of the Counter-Terrorism Foreign Fighters Bill later this year.

Nevertheless, this does not mean that the measures are without merit.

While it is incumbent upon the media and our politicians not to fan the flames of fear or to use the spectre of terrorism for political ends, they also have a responsibility to soberly and methodically assess such threats as they emerge and put in place reasonable and proportionate measures in response.

Indeed, those that accuse the Government of manufacturing the security threat to distract from other matters should note that of the 30 Australians that were known to be fighting against Western forces in Afghanistan, 25 came back home and two-thirds of those that returned to Australia were subsequently involved in planning terrorist attacks.

As Julie Bishop said: "Five times that number are now of interest to our intelligence and security agencies, either already fighting overseas or planning to become involved. So this is a far greater challenge for us in sheer numbers."

Despite this, the $630 million price tag to bolster our counter-terrorism efforts is a steep one at a time of alleged budget austerity and it is right for the public to question whether it is all worth it for 150-odd misguided (albeit highly dangerous) young men fighting in Syria and Iraq.

As Western governments have discovered in recent decades, their citizens have absolutely no tolerance for failure when it comes to combating terrorism.

The answer is that even small-scale "lone wolf" terrorist attacks can instil a degree of fear among the broader population that justifies, even demands, a decisive response. This is because such attacks have far-reaching consequences that go beyond the numbers of killed and maimed and lives ruined.

As Western governments have discovered in recent decades, their citizens have absolutely no tolerance for failure when it comes to combating terrorism. Any successful attack is met with detailed analysis of the clues that, if identified, may have thwarted the operation.

Experts and commentators inevitably lament the fact that, if only the government and its constituent counter-terrorism agencies had been more alert/empowered/resourced, the tragedy could have been avoided.

It is this inevitable reaction in the face of tragedy that demands the kind of measures currently proposed by the Government.

However, we also have a collective responsibility to ensure that the measures enacted in our name and in the interests of our safety and security are balanced with the freedoms and liberties that characterise our secular and democratic society.

This is the debate that is now unfolding. There are as yet many unanswered questions surrounding some of the more controversial measures put forward by the Government, especially regarding the proposal to reverse the burden of proof in instances where an individual has travelled to a designated area of conflict.

It may be that once the legislation is tabled, this particular reform represents a move too far in favour of the national security imperative. However, we should be willing to keep an open mind on this and the other measures currently under consideration.

The reality is that it is devilishly hard to gain information on the activities of Australians fighting in locations such as Afghanistan, Syria and Iraq. This fact, coupled with the intractable state of these conflicts and the disturbing images of fighters such as Mohamed Elomar and Khaled Sharrouf brandishing severed heads, should leave us in no doubt as to the seriousness of the situation.

We therefore have to ask ourselves: are we willing to accept the consequences of inaction in the face of the emerging threat posed by Australian fighters in places such as Syria and Iraq? If the answer is "no" then we need to think seriously about what sacrifices we are willing to make to avoid this eventuality.

Tim Mayfield is the executive officer to the Chancellor of the ANU and previously worked for the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade and Department of Defence. View his full profile here.

Comments (123)

muzz:

08 Aug 2014 1:25:12pm

The problem with giving up one piece of Liberty is when the next bit is given up and the next bit and the next bit slowly but surely we give up all our liberty.

Plus do you really trust our security services not to use this to spy on organizations and individuals who oppose the Govt because they are sen as subversive such as Amnesty International , whistle blowers ,etc or other groups who annoy the hell out of Govts because they speak out about their misdeeds

jeltz:

muzz:

08 Aug 2014 2:01:24pm

Privacy is liberty because liberty is freedom ,privacy is what I expect I don't want big brother watching over me . If I wanted big brother watching I would live in a country like North Korea or China.

Lucky:

Malcolm:

08 Aug 2014 2:14:51pm

Why should I or anyone else surrender their privacy because some politician or public servant wants more power? There is no reason why they should have additional powers - they have more than sufficient already and as far as attacking my privacy is concerned they can take themselves and their repressive proposals and shove them up their collective arses.

You can always tell when politicians and public servants have too little to do - they start make work exercises, most of which make life more miserable for the people they are supposedly serving. If they are worried about what will happen if people currently fighting jihads in the ME return to Australia they have the laws in place to deal with them - remember David Hicks.

DannyS:

08 Aug 2014 6:27:15pm

Malcolm, you can be sure that it's the politicians and their minders/advisers who encourage them to push the boundaries.

Public servants have to do what they are told or they'll lose their jobs. The bane of my existence as a public servant is being told what I have to do and then days, weeks or months later it is changed or completely reversed.

The TV programs Yes Minister/Prime Minister were a true representation of what happened in the upper echelons of power then. It is no longer the case and hasn't been for some time.

the yank:

Malcolm:

08 Aug 2014 1:54:24pm

One is wise never to surrender liberty. We tend to forget that the liberties we do have were not given to us free of charge, all of them required fighting for so having won those fights it is just plain self-destructive to give them up. We have a sufficiently strong body of law to deal with people who would threaten our society without the need to grant the police or government any more power. The real problem lies in the reluctance of the authorities to use the powers they already have - not in there being a lack of power.

Stuffed Olive:

graazt:

08 Aug 2014 4:10:47pm

"Your right to privacy on the internet wasn't given to you by someone who fought for it."

It needn't be. Freedom is the default state. It is always taken away. Sometimes for good reason (your freedom to murder deprives another the freedom to live, for example). And often for bad reasons (to eliminate political opposition to a particular regime, for example).

APM:

08 Aug 2014 2:51:31pm

We are surrendering liberty because we don't want to be seen to be profiling and offend the 2.2 percent of Australians from the religion that is the entire source of the problem. Personally, I am not happy to sacrifice my freedom and privacy to protect the feelings of the religious group that is to varying degrees opposed to my way of life. I don't care if they are offended to be confronted with the truth. The very first thing that should be done is to recognise that the larger the membership of that religious population, the bigger the terrorism threat. That should be a clue about our immigration policies. It is absurd and a sign of Western senility that this isn't the first course of action. Appeasement.

Malcolm:

08 Aug 2014 3:32:38pm

APM I am beginning to suspect that your concerns about Islam are bordering on the unhealthy. Could you try and specify which part of Islam are opposed to your way of life and in what way you have behaved to upset them, other than using any pretext to attack them.

APM:

08 Aug 2014 4:07:31pm

None of the major source countries of our Muslim population are freedom loving peaceful places or known for tolerating secularism or ethnic minorities, and few are democratic. Women and homosexuals are treated appallingly. It is the religious dominance that shapes these societies. Not surprisingly the Australian muslim community continues the traditions of their homelands and rather than integrating the second generation appears no different with jihad calling. Wherever these communities exist there is always a climate of violence and oppression. There is no reason to be optimistic. You probably think it is racist to notice these things. I say it is in the public interest to be honest and act accordingly.

Tony:

08 Aug 2014 6:44:16pm

The way this government is antagonising peace loving people it will be of no surprise if they turn violent.Abbott Bishop think they are powerful like the US, I think these idiots need to think again. Next episode China will ban imports from Australia and hate to see what happens then, I'm sure the yanks won't take up the slack. Remember US only thinks of US and no one else.

Malcolm:

08 Aug 2014 5:14:24pm

"You probably think it is racist to notice these things."

No I just think that you are confusing a minority with the majority. I know a fair few ostensible Christians who hold the same views as you are claiming for Muslims - I might add that I find all views like that narrow minded and repugnant as well. Does that make me a racist, no just makes me someone who places no value on any sort of religious ethic which excludes the worth of a person as a person.

MDG:

08 Aug 2014 4:02:28pm

Nonsense. The PM himself has said that retained data will be used to fight 'general crime' and just today we had the example of the investigation into Jill Meagher's murder cited as a case study - if memory serves, she was killed by a dinky-di, Aussie-born white guy who was not, as far as I know, a member of the religion you're cutely tiptoeing around. This is far bigger than anti-terrorism and far bigger than Muslims.

Maxx:

08 Aug 2014 5:34:26pm

Thank you APM. I think you are closer to the truth than most would like to admit. The situation today is the result of failed policies of the past but of course we can't discuss them because we may offend someone.

Malcolm:

08 Aug 2014 6:39:51pm

I find it strangely revealing that Andrew Bolt's supporters will sneak their poison into a discussion that seems to be about stereotyping one particular religion. But then I suppose that Muslims and Aboriginals are fair game to some regardless of whether or the actions of an individual represent those of the whole group. Could I suggest that those who are going to stereotype at the very least present evidence that their stereotype is indeed reflective of the whole. And yes I agree that it would be fair to say that like all nationalities and religions there are a few rotten apples but broad brush techniques just serve no purpose unless you attempting to hide the cracks in the facade.

harvey:

For example, 30 years ago the when the national ID Australia Card was proprosed there were howls of protest and it quickly disappeared. People were outraged at the idea of carrying an identity card.

Now everyone carries an identity card and pays for one. Its called a SIM card, and not only is it an ID card, but it tracks our position for the whole time its switched on. Which is 24 x 7.

Without a warrant, we can be tracked, our phone conversations can be monitored, and even our non phone conversations can be monitored because whoever wants to can just switch on the phone's microphone at any time.

One day we won't need to carry anything or charge anything, we will just be microchipped with a tiny device that gets its power from our bodies. So much more convenient. For us. For our bosses. For the bureaucracy. Whats not to like. It will be efficiency plus.

Just Sayin':

08 Aug 2014 6:57:24pm

So it's OK to monitor mobile phones then as you don't have one.

That's OK as we know you have a computer of some sort so we will monitor that then, & please don't tell us you the the PC at the local library, the CCTV's will have you on record if the library desk doesn't have your name, address etc at hand.

elsbrook:

Susan:

08 Aug 2014 2:31:48pm

You obviously haven't heard of the "McCarthy era" and "reds under the bed" where people were forced to dob in other people just to get their liberty back. It didn't matter if they were communists or not, just what they were seen to be. This isn't such a stretch of the imagination. Using your "pictures of children" analogy - remember the fuss when schools stopped grandparents taking photos at sports days? Hmmm?

don't believe the media:

08 Aug 2014 4:46:54pm

Susan, you know Tony Abbott made it clear that any public servant who criticised the government, even anonymously, as on a forum, would be sacked and that workmates were encouraged to dob in anyone behaving in such a manner.Not such a stretch at all is it? We're there sister.

Just Sayin':

That info will be handed onto the local police to take care of. In the USA the NSA was handing info onto the FBI & other agencies when they came about stuff that was out of their ambit.

So they laundered the info to wash themselves from the evidence trail by letting the local cops know that they should for instance do a "random" traffic stop on a specific car/truck travelling on a certain highway. That way there was no comeback in court on how the cops found out about the illegal activity.

The beans were spilled on this practice when the NSA boasted how they caught other criminals in their wide ranging trawling of the metadata in their hands to justify why they should be allowed to continue with their possibly illegal practices.

Scott:

08 Aug 2014 1:25:59pm

That might be a discussion worth having if there were any significant threats to mitigate, which there aren't, and if keeping 20 million people's worth of metadata was an effective way to mitigate those threats, which it isn't.

If this was actually about saving lives, the government would instead spend the money that this will cost on healthcare, or subsidies for airbags, or the flying doctors. Just about any other use of that amount of money would save more lives than this will.

Oaktree:

08 Aug 2014 6:12:44pm

This is not about safety, it is about intrusion and confusion, Someone asked the question about how this could advantage Murdoch, and one does have to wonder. Even if it is solely because he is protecting the Government which protects his interests, by taking attention away from that travesty of a budget.

The more data information, the less protected we are in terms of privacy and from having our data sold on so we receive yet more advertisements to clog up our emails. We are also in danger from hackers who might leave information on our records implicating us in terrorist or other hostile activities.

the yank:

08 Aug 2014 1:32:49pm

The question I am asking myself is when will the government actually understand that before they lay an idea out for public scrutiny they actually have some idea what it will entail and be able to explain it clearly?

Information regarding my life and everyone else's is being picked over my every living organisation. Why should I allow someone else to have a go?

And to top it off while our ASIO hot shots weren't looking are boarders have been well and truly breeched not by boats but by planes?

First you have to convince me that someone actually knows what they are doing and that this isn't just some political play to get the attention of the voter away from the mismanagement of the government.

hairy nosed wombat:

08 Aug 2014 3:03:27pm

This is the crux of the matter for me. Part of the equation has to be the oversight of this potentially massive increase in the powers of the state. That oversight is supposed to be exercised by our elected government. And on the basis of what we have seen over the last week (OK, perhaps the last decade) there is no way in the world I would give Tony Abbott and George Brandis oversight of those kind of powers. The honest truth is that if I thought these powers would be under the oversight of someone who actually seems to have an understanding of what is being proposed like Malcolm Turnbull then, yes, I could perhaps allow that. But Malcolm Turnbull wasn't even consulted (and has again been pulled out by the leadership to try and save the day by demonstrating there is at least still one last competent person in the government - who they haven't quite got around to getting rid of as yet).

If Tony Abbott isn't even going to discuss this communication legislation with the Minister in the portfolio, and apparently the only person in cabinet with an ability to understand the issues involved, then hell will freeze over before I would want Tony Abbott and George Brandis having oversight of these potentially huge new powers.

Mongo:

08 Aug 2014 1:37:00pm

Perhaps.

The problem here is that there is as much of an argument against the proposal as there is justification for it, not the least reason for opposing it being the inability of the neo-Luddite numpties to actually explain their case.

Part of the issue here is that if there is a genuine need for such a change, the case needs to be presented using arguments that are comprehensible to the electorate. Asking the electorate to surrender liberties of any type requires the government to take responsibility for presenting the proposal in a clearly articulated fashion that allys any fears the electorate may have regarding the misuse of the proposal.

Instead, the ham-fisted drivel emanating from our 'leaders' shows that they don't know what the proposal entails. As a consequence, they demonstrate by their actions that the proposal is unjustified. It wasn't important enough to actually 'sell' to an electorate that already has significant trust issues.

So no, Mr Mayfeild, your argument only has merit if the proposal to surrender liberties is accompanied by an argument of sufficient gravitas to justify it. In this instance, the argument was lacking. This alone shows the matter is insufficiently important to government as to warrant giving the idea oxygen.

A pocketful of wry:

Maybe we should first examine whether hiring a few more people to join the overstretched existing workforce operating within the existing laws wouldn't achieve the same ends.

From memory, Productivity Commission-type arguments have been all the rage recently. I'm afraid the notion that there's only one way to do this, it's "what I say it is, and nothing else", and it's a take-it-or-leave-it option simply doesn't wash. People like Tim Mayfield need to get over the idea that a goal has only one path leading to it. No-one is haggling about the goal, but only a fool would think that this automatically qualifies whatever shonky proposal is cobbled together to reach it demands a similar level of unquestioning acceptance. It doesn't.

Presumably there are options B, C, and D. Let's hear about them as well. Simple as, really. I'm sure the Productivity Commissioners would approve.

jeltz:

08 Aug 2014 1:44:39pm

Tony is welcome to my metadata, the very instant he tells me I am welcome to his. One of the core principles of democracy is that the law applies equally to all, and having secret government business goes completely against this principle.

Mutually Assured Metadata (that is all Metadata in the public domain is the only way out of this dilemma, the alternative being complete and absolute social isolation of each citizen from the next.

"As Western governments have discovered in recent decades", the foreign bogeyman card always plays well in domestic politics.

Allan:

08 Aug 2014 1:46:29pm

I find it interesting that so many are so upset about this idea when they so freely give platforms like Facebook so much access to their personal data, internet habits etc.I'm nowhere near an expert but I think it would be an interesting to compare the amount and nature of the information this new approach could potentially collect with the amount and nature of the information we freely and willingly allow the "internet world" to have on us.

Sir Trent Toogood:

Kerrie:

08 Aug 2014 2:44:18pm

An interesting point, Allan.

I feel safer sharing my info with FB than the government. At worst FB will sell my info so I'm inundated with advertising products/services that I'm interested in. How irritating! They may even do unauthorised experiments on my mood. The government can have me jailed or refuse security clearances etc and thus affect my employment options or use parliamentary provilege to vilify me.

Zing:

08 Aug 2014 3:11:16pm

Look at it from a different perspective.

Facebook can sell your personal information. They can grass you out to the police if they see evidence of a crime. They can misuse the information for private uses. They can disclose the information to the media. The only issue is whether they choose to do so.

If you have no trouble trusting an unelected corporation with your privacy, why do you have an issue with an elected and accountable government having the same power?

The issue isn't really about trust. It is about choice. You *choose* to surrender your privacy to unaccountable corporations, but you don't like being *forced* to surrender it to an accountable government.

Kerrie:

Generality:

08 Aug 2014 6:37:50pm

You're kidding. FB, and even ABC forums are favourite haunts. There are paid team picking up any potentially subversive activity.

Every single one of us has a "dossier". Every man, woman and child. And if you think placed like FB, Twitter and even LinkedIn arent inundated with people watching everything and everyone like a hawk, and using that cross linked data, then you're dreaming.

Every keystroke is captured. Forever. No exceptions. And FB is the perfect place to see what you "like" who you talk to, what subjects you get involved in, even what games you like. It captures your pictures (often without permission) from your phone and computer. You might as well call FB "spyware".

But I'm really glad you feel safer there and think the govt doesnt get that information. Who do you think the biggest buyer of that information is??

PW:

08 Aug 2014 2:55:10pm

While I agree with the point you are making, I do have one issue - the use of the word "freely". While many people freely, and perhaps unwisely, put all sorts of personal data onto their social media sites, they are at least making that decision themselves however uninformed it may sometimes be.

When an organisation, be it a government or not, "hoovers up" the metadata about my activities on the net, or the mobile calls that I make, I am not giving it to them "freely". While I can control to a large extent what people read about me on social media, I have no such control over who does what with my metadata. The recent leaks about various government agencies collecting data on their citizens does not fill me with confidence that this information will not be misused.

themongrel:

Jeeeb:

08 Aug 2014 1:48:19pm

the article says:"In an effort to quell concern, Irvine stressed the plan wasn't about mass surveillance nor mass invasion of privacy, and agencies would still require a warrant to access certain information."

Even this attempt to clear the waters is problematic. It should not be requires a warrant under certain circumstances. It should be requires a warrant (full stop). If ASIO .etc. cannot convince a judge that there is a reasonable suspicion that someone is engaged in a crime, then they have no business spying on them.

Similarly this article fails to address concerns about reversing the burden of proof or exactly what kind of data will retained or under what circumstances it will be accessible.

In fact the article only describes a potential threat, without explaining how the current system is not equipped to deal with it.

The Eggman:

I'd rather not relinquish my any more of my liberty thanks - the govt. has taken quite enough of that away from me already.

If the Libs want to strip away more freedom they should take it to an election alongside the rest of their hidden agenda.

There's no sure defense against terrorism anyway, in much the same way as there's no sure defense against an assassin who is willing to exchange his/her life for the life of their target.

The best defense is probably to be nice to other countries and domestic minorities/people who may be feeling disenfranchised and treat them fairly, equitably, and with respect, but I don't see a big drive for that from the Liberals. Instead, they seem to be raving, cold war style, about nasty Russians etc. and the need for new repressive and invasive powers to fight fifth columnists/terrorists domestically.

It seems to me that sometimes when you hammer people too hard they don't break, but are forged into something even more dangerous and I reckon the Libs could probably do more to make the world a safer place by dropping the tough guy routine than by launching operation 'Team Australia'.

I note that Russia has now been terminated Australian imports - a very disturbing sign of international tension that could potentially escalate into full blown war. Team Australia is good at winning medals in the Olympics, but is it equipped to win WW3?

Is this really a good time for the Liberal government to be adding more fear and negativity to things? Or could it be that the Lib's ideology is out of lock-step with the times; in much the same way that it is on climate change for example?

Jimmy Necktie:

" such rights do not exist in isolation of the equally fundamental responsibility of government to ensure the safety and security of its citizens."

I disagree. Such rights exist irrespective of government.

Has it not occurred to anyone that by forcing an ever more totalitarian reaction to terrorist threats we play into their hands? One of their main problems with us is our free society - freedom of religion, of speech and of privacy. If we erode these fundamental rights we turn ourselves into them and they win.

Malcolm:

Jimmy Necktie:

08 Aug 2014 7:12:52pm

Zing, apologies, what I have in fact done is lumped all terrorists in with particular terrorists such as this ISIS bunch. Their stated goal is to forcefully set up a state with very limited freedom. Similar groups are murdering children for obtaining a "western education". Regimes like North Korea forbid access to any western influence and actively preach it as evil.

One would then assume they *disagree* with our groovy way of life. One might then further assume that, if they could, they would have us converted to their way of life. It may not be the primary goal but logically it would seem to be the ultimate goal.

I say we are helping them. I say we are not putting our money where our mouth is when it comes to our groovy way of life. I say we are playing their game and thereby legitimising it.

Jimmy Necktie:

08 Aug 2014 7:32:13pm

"If we prevent them from striking, they lose"

Yes but we must prevent them by using our methods, not theirs. Bin Laden should have been tried in court not dumped at sea, torturing Guantanamo Bay prisoners, holding them without charge etc. And , yes, foreign policy has been a big part.

From outside it looks like we really don't have much faith in our own system, that when it comes down to it we're just as base and dirty as the rest of them. If that is the case, or even if only perceived to be the case, then I guess we have another 1000 years of holy wars to go through.

Patrick:

Are we really expected to believe we are under more threat now by terrorists than we were during and after the illegal Iraq invasion??.

Howard and the Liberal Party made our country a target by joining in an insane venture which has only succeeded in ruining an entire country and making the world a far more dangerous place.

If ever draconian laws such as the ones proposed by Abbott and the LNP were needed it was immediately post-Iraq but even Howard saw these as unnecessary. This clearly indicates that Abbott's plan is targeted to remove the rights and privacy of every Australian with no good, solid reason.

Remember just who made us a target in the first place, the LIBERAL PARTY.

Kerrie:

08 Aug 2014 4:55:37pm

"If ever draconian laws such as the ones proposed by Abbott and the LNP were needed it was immediately post-Iraq but even Howard saw these as unnecessary. This clearly indicates that Abbott's plan is targeted to remove the rights and privacy of every Australian with no good, solid reason."

Patrick, they have a good solid reason. They are scared of potential domestic terrorists who may or may not violently oppose their new order. Haven't you seen their security details and the attacks on their persons, not to mention the chanting in Q&A?

David:

Alpo:

08 Aug 2014 2:28:03pm

"the more liberty one possesses, the more one exposes oneself to risk of attack"... Great, so: Full Protection = ZERO Liberty.But hey, if we have ZERO Liberty, who protects us from such a Fascist Government?....

IF the Government is so concerned about potential terrorism threats, then they should provide our security services with significantly more resources, not limit our Liberties. What's more important: to protect Australia against Terrorism or returning the Budget to Surplus?

Stop sliding into Right Wing Authoritarianism on the back of an Anti-terrorist Paranoia.... Enough is enough!

Jerry Attrick:

08 Aug 2014 2:28:24pm

It would be foolish to argue against anti-terrorism proposals on the basis of pure ideology (left v. right, for example). Without question, Australians would prefer to know that dangerous people can be identified and, hopefully, neutralised in their threat to us all.Aiming to establish such protections is not helped by the government claiming that it will reverse the onus of proof on individuals who plan to travel to global trouble-spots. Such a move would allow detention and imprisonment purely on the suspicion that someone might commit a violent act, without proof of a basis for that suspicion, except for their travel destination.This is straight out of the extremist authoritarian government handbook. More importantly, it is impossible to prove a negative case. So people detained under this proposal could find themselves in prison for a very long time and possibly without any foundation to the original suspicion.Many of us Australians would view such changes as dangerous and likely to create more problems than they solve.

Mawson:

These debates always get mixed up between protection of the population, and the subsequent prosecution of people.

This is not really about safety.

It is about trying to prove that someone was a terrorist in retrospect by enabling the State to see if that person has been looking up terrorist sites in the last 2 years.

Proving people are guilty of offences is traditionally difficult - that is why the State has a few shortcuts - for example, deeming that someone is guilty of speeding by producing a certificate to say that the camera was working etc.

This is just another shortcut.

The more ease a State has in prosecuting people, the more likelihood of a conviction, and the more it can say it is "protecting" the community.

This in itself is laudible, however history says that this becomes accepted and then starts getting stretched to other things which do not concern public safety.

The first thing is that it will be stretched to 5 years, then 10 years, then your entire internet history.

First it will be metadata, then URLs, then facebook, twitter, online banking, private texts between parters etc.

Then we reverse the onus on terrorism, then murder, then rape, then assault, then public nuicence, then everything.

Next we will use the same technique to prosecute people smugglers, then drug trafficers, then drug users, then prostitutes, then centrelink fraud, then tax evasion, then rioters, then protesters, then trade union offences, then those annoying people who chain themselves to bulldozers, to those people who drive and use mobile phones, then swearing in public...then anyone who commits any transgression at any time.

Then we will be all "protected" by our government from "terrorism". And we'll be just like the North Koreans, who protect their citizens from terrorism very well indeed.

Generality:

08 Aug 2014 6:42:38pm

"First it will be metadata, then URLs, then facebook, twitter, online banking, private texts between parters etc."

Sorry to bust your bubble Mawson. Already happening and even more, and has been for a long time. The govt has for years had access to our banking, FB sells it, anyone can see Twitter and when a crime is committed or solved and they play for you the actual phone call that convicted someone, how do you think they got that phone call?

Someone kept a recording of it. The same as they do with texts.

There is "nothing" that isnt copied and kept. It wasnt possible before computers and chips, but it sure is now.

kp:

08 Aug 2014 2:54:32pm

"Indeed, those that accuse the Government of manufacturing the security threat to distract from other matters should note that of the 30 Australians that were known to be fighting against Western forces in Afghanistan, 25 came back home and two-thirds of those that returned to Australia were subsequently involved in planning terrorist attacks."

Which the relevant authorities were able to track and prevent from conducting terrorist attacks using current legislation. This statement by the Government is evidence that these new laws aren't required.

At no point in the debate so far has the Government being able to cite a single example of where having access to this information would have either prevented a terrorist attack or led to the successful prosecution of a person who was otherwise acquitted. Until the Government can provide such examples where the current system has failed, there is simply no case for making any changes.

DCO:

The neoLIBS tell us we can't trust any government, which is why we need small, impotent government. (I bet you thought it was so their rich corporate mates could steal more stuff from us.)

We are being asked to trust not only this government, but all future governments with the protection of our fundamental rights.

Even ignoring the endless lies this government has already been quite happy to indulge in, we'd be mad to assume that all future governments will act responsibly. The Germans did that in 1932.

On top of that, these economist obsessives ought to be arguing that this approach is cost-effective, and that it won't drive the economy, which is already in emergency status (their truth), into deeper difficulties. I don't think they've made that case.

StopTheBleeding:

A featured passage of this article reads "As Western governments have discovered in recent decades, their citizens have absolutely no tolerance for failure when it comes to combating terrorism."

The well publicised failures in the past occurred in "spite" of the massive surveillance programs run singularly or collectively by the FBI, CIA, NSA, and Homeland Security.

It would seem to me the Americans have forfeited their privacy for little, if anything, in return (assuming in the first instance that they actually had a choice). So why should we here in Australia settle for the same?

Just Sayin':

Yep, all that surveillance didn't stop the Boston Bombing, nor the failed attempt in NY with the car bomb, ordinary citizens found the Boston bomber & alerted police to the failed NY car bomb.

The FBI have had much more success in creating, planning & carrying out suppossed terrorist threats by convincing people with low IQ's and/or are easliy led to go along with their psuedo terrorist/criminal plans, just so they can look like they are stoping the bad guys.

One such prosecution has been struck down by a US Federal judge who has called it for what it really is, a sham. None of the people involved would have be capable of pulling off the plan if it wasn't for the FBI orchestrating the whole thing.

Take those few dozen entrapment show trials out of the equation & the results for Americans who have lost their freedoms in the name of 'terrorism' amounts to SFA.

Dove:

Erika:

08 Aug 2014 3:06:26pm

The government has been nibbling away at our privacy and liberty for decades in the name of "national security" and "health and safety" and "health policy" and just about anything else you care to name.

I do not believe that an agency that is subject to as little public oversight as ASIO can be trusted with our metadata. If metadata is so innocuous, why do they want it?

Given that the security agencies have been able to detect returned terrorists who are planning on more murder and mayhem, why do they need the metadata if they can do the job without it? (In a lot of cases, reading the suspects' Facebook and Twitter pages will enable them to garner the bulk of the evidence they need.)

The government already has much more power over citizens than it needs.

MT_Syd:

Here we have a government trying to persuade us that we need to spend hundreds of millions of dollars (the cost of storage for ISPs) and to allow them to store our internet and communications data

At the same time they are spending billions 'protecting' us from a few thousand boat people.

Meanwhile around 200,000 people a year come here via the regular immigration program which the recently leaked department documents reveal is allowing fraudulent applications through on a grand scale (around 90%)

And,we have a rising unemployment rate, not because the economy isnt growing, but because it is failing to keep up with population growth.

How about the bleedin' obvious policy response?

Cut the immigration program, allow us our privacy, spend the tax dollars on something better (like needs based school funding)

Nova4avr:

08 Aug 2014 3:25:46pm

I wonder if our existing measures on security aren't already sufficient to combat terrorist threats. It does seem to me that there are more & more calls for increased invasions of privacy & possible reductions of freedoms.I suppose it might make it easier for authorities to do their job if they have unfettered access to everyone's data & phone calls, but is it really necessary, or we being lead down the garden path towards a more "big brother is watching" state. I somehow feel this is the ulterior motive behind it.

graazt:

Under the existing laws, how many Australians have become victims of terrorism?

How many would have been saved with these measures?

How much will it cost, not just in terms of liberty, but raw dollars, to implement and retain these measures? Is that money better elsewhere?

I understand the past is not necessarily the best predictor of the future, but was has changed in the last 30 years that warrants these measures now? Are these measures going to be sufficient, or will we find ourselves being asked to give up more liberty for more security in the coming years?

What oversight is being proposed to ensure ASIO is accountable to the Australian people?

Are these measures temporary; until we've won the "War on Terror"? Or permanent fixtures for our liberal democracy? If the former, how are we going to win this "war on terror"?

graazt:

don't believe the media:

08 Aug 2014 6:59:06pm

Let's look at the facts of 9/11. The terrorists were known, the terrorists were observed training as pilots, the terrorists were all Saudis. The Bush family was negotiating oil deals with the Bin Laden family at the time. The information of an impending attack was passed up the line. All evidence at the site, 'ground zero' was collected and disposed of immediately and the Saudi's enemy, having had nothing to do with 9/11 whatsoever, Iraq, was invaded. The stupidest President the U.S has ever had was re-elected as a strong war leader. The corporate deals in Iraq were shared out, minus any tender process, to the usual suspects.

Hitler needed a terror strike against the German people to gain popularity as a strong leader, the Reichstag burned down.

Margaret Thatcher had the lowest popularity ever in her first term and railed hard against any further monetary support for the Falkland Islands, considering them a waste of money and effort. The Argentinians wanted the Malvinas back and Thatcher quickly changed her tune and declared war sending her popularity figures up from low 20s to above 50.

Fear campaigns and overt nationalism have always been the methodology of those wishing to steal our rights and protections to implement their economic and social take-over.

If Tony Abbott's big mouth doesn't try to help push the Russians into confrontation so that he can stand behind Uncle Sam and ponce about pretending to be a strong war-time leader to impose his economic and social misery upon us will be VERY surprised.

anote:

08 Aug 2014 3:41:50pm

"Nevertheless, this does not mean that the measures are without merit." So long as 'responsible' members of government display a lack of basic understanding, as Abbott and Brandis have, it DOES mean that the measures should be treated as being without merit. "While it is incumbent upon the media and our politicians not to fan the flames of fear or to use the spectre of terrorism for political ends, they also have a responsibility to soberly and methodically assess such threats as they emerge and put in place reasonable and proportionate measures in response." and the they failed on both points.

On the one hand, the government is maintaining excessive secrecy with respect to so called operational measures against refugees. On the other, they are announcing the intention to retain more data and trying to reassure without really knowing what they are talking about. Both are consistent with a tough guy approach but both provide reason to distrust them or question their competence.R

OUB :

santini:

08 Aug 2014 4:02:39pm

If power can be abused, power will be abused. No ifs , buts, or maybes. The terrorist threat is vastly exaggerated. It always has been. I knew that the West needed a new bogeyman after the end of the cold war but I thought they would contrive something a bit more believable than a few raggedy bottomed fringe dwellers. As someone or other said - "we have nothing to fear but fear itself. "

Wildfire2013:

08 Aug 2014 4:10:53pm

Can we please move from a patriarchal system of human civilization to a matriarchal one? Go ahead and laugh at me and say what you like but I absolutely believe that if women ruled this world we wouldn't have half of this rubbish happening. As someone pointed out the other day...the gift of testosterone...yeah right. Btw I'm a guy and happy to let women have a go at running the joint. All religious text has been written by men for the benefit of men...it's the same in so many other systems as well. If you don't believe me open your eyes and start looking more closely and more critically at all the underlying causes (it's become boorish this patriarchal setup).

Not Such a Golden Oldie:

08 Aug 2014 4:17:56pm

I am already concerned about the reduced privacy I incur just by using the internet. I don't like giving the private sector the ability to track my viewing and spending habits, I feel it is offensive. I also do not wish to give government more access to my private concerns. If that makes me more vulnerable to being a victim of a terrorist, then so be it.I also have memories of the hysteria involved in McCarthyism and even the ridiculous spying on individuals considered to be a threat, when ASIO was under the leadership of the paranoiac Colonel Spry. So no I don't trust our spy agencies of governments of the left or the right to behave differently than they have in the past, when given more powers. I am inclined to think that any employee of a spying agency is likely by the very nature of the job to be overly suspicious of the general populous.This is just another instance of using a cost/benefit analysis to determine whether we should go down the path of handing more powers to our secret services. For me the costs are too high and the potential benefits are too low.

MD:

08 Aug 2014 4:25:21pm

Your last sentence is why we don't believe that the government or security agencies (a) need data or metadata collection on this scale, (b) knows what to use it for and (c)most of all, can be trusted to curtail mission creep . If we're to think seriously about it, the government needs to tell us exactly what we need to think about, and it needs to explain why, if the need is so important, so pressing, it isn't important enough to be understood by the people who're selling it, and to be taken to an election. They pontificate about mandate when it suits them, no mandate for this has been asked for or granted. It's an imposition.

GrumpiSkeptic:

08 Aug 2014 4:49:23pm

Yes, I am a skeptic for good reasons...

Now the spooks wanting more "Meta Data" about our electronic activities. Our honorable Attorney General George Brandis agreed with the proposal and attempted to sell the idea. Unfortunately for him, it came unstuck when he tried to explain what "Mata Data" is.

"Well... The web address...um, is part of the metadata...the web address, the electronic address of the website..."

If he has not a clue about what ASIO asked for, surely there is a problem there, isn't it ?

I want to look at a bigger picture...

The mess caused in the Middle East by the "Coalition of the willing", and then the deliberate attempts to dislodge the Syrian government, have resulted in a far worse scenario than any military and political analyst can predict. A vicious, cold blooded terrorist group called ISIS. These hoods intend on destroy anything and everything on sight.

The trouble is that losers who have nothing to lose, but everything to gain by joining such mindless killers, can potentially return to Australia to potentially wreak havoc here.

My question is: Didn't we create problems by stirring up the pots, and then trying vainly to hose down the fire?

Now that we could potentially have home-grown terrorism, everyone got caught in an ever widening net. Talking about poking a stick at the hornet's nest....

David Brooks:

08 Aug 2014 4:54:37pm

"liberty and security exist on a sliding scale: the more liberty one possesses, the more one exposes oneself to risk of attack." Where did this unsubstantiated claim come from? What evidence exists that this statement is even remotely true?

We are frequently asked to "give up a little Freedom," for a multitude of reason, by both State and Federal governments. This results in the people having a multitude of rules and regulation accumulated over the past 70 - 80 - 90 years which each take "a little freedom." There never seems to be a time when that freedom can be returned to the people.

Orwells 1984 was written as a warning not a guide book. Politicians should get out of our faces. We do not like the boots they wear!

MrSmith:

08 Aug 2014 4:55:49pm

It would be a sliding scale that could shift security up when liberty down if and only if it could be garaunteed that the loss of liberty does itself increase security.

The planned data retention would not sufficiently or meaningfully improve security. There are already a wide range of services that make it impossible to accurately track the true destination of any requests such that knowing this end of the conversation is meaningless. Knowing that I was once allocated a specific IP address would only be useful if someone recorded that IP address connecting and transacting with a suspicious destination whilst it was allocated to me. There are enough VPN, Onion routing, and proxy services available and outside of Australian jurisdiction that successful use of this information is highly unlikely. So in effect we are being asked to surrender information that would be very useful for prosecuting copyright violation, but would not be useful to track or find anyone seriously interested in preserving their anonymity.

Clotho:

08 Aug 2014 4:56:07pm

[[ The people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same way in any country ]]

olive:

08 Aug 2014 5:06:08pm

One could think that the proposed changes to Section 18C (now seemingly abandoned) and the attack on personal privacy are contradictory. But when one diggs in a bit harder - both are aimed at additional protection of the mighty and powerful.

Artful Dodger:

08 Aug 2014 5:32:59pm

My daddy told me 'if you play with fire you are likely to get burnt" and no amount of fire fighting equipment will prevent it.Taking sides between evils is like playing with fire-do not add fuel to it as our Govenrment does- hose it down?

I mean the same PM who takes sides in the ME and tried to make a hero of himself by giving Putin "what for" is now accusing him of "bullying"- the man is an imbecile and you want me to give up some of my liberty? No way!!

Paul M:

08 Aug 2014 6:09:36pm

I'm all for keeping people safe but I don't see this paying good dividends. How many Australians die from terrorists each year? I'd say it's on par with shark attacks. If saving lives was the goal then employing a few more school lolly pop wardens would be more effective.

Regionalgranny:

08 Aug 2014 6:18:44pm

This philosophy it seems to me is similar to that embraced, at the proposed introduction of stricter law and order policies, 'if you have done nothing wrong you have nothing to fear'. So the screws tighten on our freedoms. Unfortunately people who advocate stricter controls over the population use dubious statistics about crime etc. Additionally, media give time and space to crime reports over good news stories. There are those in our society particularly the elderly who will tell me how unsafe it is in our streets and homes but they know no one who has been assaulted or robbed including themselves. They will lock themselves in their homes before dark and avoid crowded places and therefore miss out on interaction with their fellow citizens.I have no doubt there is a possibility that terrorism will visit our shores. In fact it has done in the past. However, is there not some truth in the adage, that if we curtail the freedoms of our citizens the terrorists have already won a victory.

halfbeak:

08 Aug 2014 6:24:53pm

Adolf Hitler wrote; ?The best way to take control over a people and control them utterly is to take a little of their freedom at a time, to erode rights by a thousand tiny and almost imperceptible reductions. In this way, the people will not see those rights and freedoms being removed until past the point at which these changes cannot be reversed.?

don't believe the media:

Stephen S:

08 Aug 2014 7:28:48pm

Our Foreign Minister does not have the right , to ask Australians to give up some liberty, Australians have already had considerable liberty and rights trampled on! If Ms Bishop needs to familarise herself with International Law and Human Rights, something Ms Bishop appears totally ignorant of, either that, or Ms Bishop feel she is "above" the genral Australian? This Government are a bunch of arogant pigs, and this is one voter whom they have lost at the next election!